Furthermore, opening up the debate on taxing the childless offers us the opportunity to correct a significant anomaly in the current democratic system. At present, sensible, long-sighted public policies, like reducing emissions under the Kyoto Accord, or massively increasing federal child benefits, are impossible to pass as legislation, due to the short-termist, myopic attitude of our political process. Throughout our society, most of our most pressing problems can be put down to a failure to take the long-term view.

Is this failure to think of the future unconnected to the childlessness epidemic, identified by my colleague Elby in his column last week? I think not.

Parents are systematically more likely to think of the future of our planet and our society, because their children and the prospect of further generations of descendants give them a long-term stake in that future. Childless people, in the knowledge that they are a Darwinian blind alley, take a far more nihilistic, me-first attitude to the problems of the world. The childlessness epidemic of the last twenty years has meant that this selfishness has become unacceptably prevalent.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in the plight of our inner cities. Both the social phenomena identified above come together to create a problem of monstrous proportions. Underprivileged youngsters are deprived of an education, of mind-developing toys and of the fashionable branded goods which are so necessary for well-balanced development these days. They grow up, not into productive members of society, but into damaged individuals - rootless, feckless, and most importantly childless young men, with no stake in our society, who therefore have no incentive to engage in anything other than the most destructive and mindlessly hedonistic of pursuits. This pathological culture is not confined to the inner cities, of course; it spreads to the wealthy suburbs, where the modern, career-oriented couple considers the sacred Darwinian function of reproduction to be a "lifestyle choice", putting children second to the demands of a modern, two-career, multiple-SUV household. Is it any wonder that people with such selfish, warped priorities end up voting for George W Bush?

Given the twin problems of underprivileged children and socially harmful childlessness, an economist's answer to the problem would be simple - a fiscally neutral "tax vice to subsidise virtue" program. This is the first half of the policy program we recommend, and it makes economic sense. The only arguments against it are clearly fallacious, and typical of the self-serving anti-child lobby:

"Children are nobody's responsibility but their parents'". A superficially attractive slogan, but one with no logic to it whatsoever. If a child steals from your store, or vandalises your car, do we leave its chastisement to the parents? Of course not. Do we allow parents to make decisions on their children's sexual maturity at the age of 8? Of course not. We recognise children for what they are; independent individuals with their own particular set of rights. And the children of this nation would seem to be at least as deserving of Federal subsidy as Boeing or Microsoft.

"If people can't afford to support children, they shouldn't have them". As discussed above, this is a dangerously stupid point of view. The poorest segment of society is exactly that segment which must be encouraged to reproduce; otherwise it has no stake whatsoever in maintaining our society, economic or otherwise. The idea that the poor should be deprived of the only significantly popular source of recreation which does not cost money, or of the opportunity to enjoy the unconditional love of the parent -child relationship, is a recipe for violent revolution somewhere down the line.

"We can't afford it. Nonsense. What we can't afford is the current childlessness epidemic. As Elby points out in his excellent column, this is suicidal at the national level; it also has grave economic consequences. As we know, Social Security is bust, bust as a direct result of the child-hatingselfishness of the Baby Boom generation, and their irresponsible failure to bear enough children to pay their old age pensions. We all benefit from the favourable demographic pyramid effect of a constantly growing population, and the childless actually benefit most of all, since they tend to live longer and thus collect more Social Security checks. Some of the more enlightened nations of Europe have already begun to catch on to this.

It would seem, then, that the economic logic of a tax-the-childless policy is indefensible. However, unfortunately, as is always the case with these things, the political logic is less clear-cut. In order to gain support for child-friendly policies, it is necessary to build a working majority of parents over the childless, something which is unlikely to exist given our current, child-hating tax system. It is for this reason that we propose the second, more radical of the social reforms in the title of this column; double votes for parents.

"Double votes for parents" is merely a crude rule of thumb aimed at enfranchising the future generations who are currently, disastrously, deprived of a voice in our political system. In the discussion of long-term measures like the Kyoto Accord, it is ludicrous that the very people who are likely to be most affected by the decision taken (the generation currently in swaddling clothes) are deprived of a vote by the very reason of their youth. Taking their votes and putting them in the hands of responsible, loving parents is a first step toward correcting this towering injustice. In the fullness of time, as we start taking decisions on matters such as genetic modification and deep space exploration, it may become necessary to increase the voting power of parents still further, to take account of expected future grandchildren and even later generations, but for now, it is pretty safe to assume that the more moderate reform would be sufficient to pass the sensible tax-the-childless policy.

This is clearly the way forward for America, and for other prosperous First World countries where the low birthrate has led to a culture of childlessness and its concomitant selfishness. With luck, we can reverse this destructive trend and look forward to a prosperous society, with sensible environmental policies. After all, we owe to our children, and to our children'schildren. And to each other's children.

I myself am getting sick of the childless continually griping about parents taking time off to be with their sick children, or being given preferential vacation time since their children are out of school, or being excused from long business trips because family is a priority. Sadly, this well thought out piece will bring more of the anti-children folk out of the woodwork.

If they would just honestly look inside themelves, they would realize that their lifestyle with expensive vacations, sports cars, nice clothing, nice houses are all just bandaids on their tortured souls, souls aching for a young one to call their own. But, if they're still to selfish to have children, at least a double tax will help the next generation.

(A.R.'s comments in <<>>)
<<I myself am getting sick of the childless continually griping about parents taking time off to be with their sick children, or being given preferential vacation time since their children are out of school, or being excused from long business trips because family is a priority. Sadly, this well thought out piece will bring more of the anti-children folk out of the woodwork.>>

As well it should! Deal with it, buddy, we the childless (or childfree, as we prefer to be called) are out there, and we're not going away as long as your spoiled breeder butts are pushing to marginalize us even further with tripe such as this.

As for "family priorities" -- how dare you insinuate that our families are not a priority! I happen to have a family too, and you'd better believe they come before my career. Just because my family does not include genetic offspring in no way lessens its value. And if it comes down to you spending time with your brats vs. my equally valid right to put work aside in favor of my spouse, my parents, my siblings, or anyone else I deeply love, you had better believe I am going to fight tooth and nail to NOT be treated as a second-class citizen.

<<If they would just honestly look inside themelves, they would realize that their lifestyle with expensive vacations, sports cars, nice clothing, nice houses are all just bandaids on their tortured souls, souls aching for a young one to call their own. But, if they're still to selfish to have children, at least a double tax will help the next generation.>>

Yes, I have more disposable income than I would if I were a slave to diapers, Gymboree, and Pokemon paraphernalia and their accompanying expense. But I'm very much a member of the middle class, along with a good chunk of the childfree population. Most of us are just pursuing our lives, working for a living just like you.

How jealous must you be of our freedom to hallucinate perks and privileges that you can only dream of in your childridden state? Our paychecks are already diminished with the burden of taxes we pay, like it or not, to fund the many deductions you and your squalling broods enjoy at our expense.

So, I'm selfish, am I? Yes indeed, I'm so selfish that I can't bear the thought of adding another little superconsumer to an environment already stretched far beyond its capacity. Shame on me for refusing to inflict the hereditary illness I carry onto an unsuspecting child. How dare I opt out of parenthood when I too might enjoy the guilty pleasure of pumping out little DNA replicas to ensure my "immortality" -- it's not as if I'm personally capable of making a contribution to society through my own hard work and creativity. I'm not taking the easy way out -- imagine that!

We surely do need a double tax ... but it should rightfully fall to the breeders who continue to infest an overcrowded world with *their* selfish desire to replicate their pathetic selves. Given what I've seen of the upcoming generation, I'm still waiting to meet these altruistic parents who only have the best interests of society in mind as they continue to breed irresponsibly. Get back to me in 30 years and we'll see just who's really thinking of the future. I can hardly wait.

I feel they're an abomination, but in your case I would consider an exception. Perhaps you could write one up where you agree not to be resuscitated or cared for by people younger than you, you know, the children of your peers.

A. Rightmann

Paid Back Later (5.00 / 1) (#19)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:45:02 AM PST

Adam Wrongmann, we pay taxes to support the children of our peers as they go to school, receive medical care and so on and so forth. It is only fair that they return the favor by caring for us in our old age, once we can no longer fend for ourselves.

Mr. KingKongKitty? Here's a nice, new bedpan, fresh out of the freezer.

A. Rightmann

Bitter? HA! (5.00 / 1) (#24)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:00:52 AM PST

Bitter? ROFL!! We get to live our lives in peace, knowing we are creating no burden on this planet for after we are gone. It's the funniest thing when people presume (wrongly) that we are bitter for not having children. It occurs to us that people like that regret having children but can't face up to it.

Seriously, if humanity is such a burden on the Earth (and the small portion of humanity that uses the web uses a disproportionate amount of resources) what exactly is your rationale for living? You seem to be proud of the fact that you will leave no burden after you go, so why wait?

A. Rightmann

Leaving Sooner (5.00 / 1) (#29)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:10:24 AM PST

I didn't ask to be here, I had no say in the matter. However, I am here, so I might as well do some good while I am here. Teaching, volunteering, helping others learn not to waste natural resources, etc. are good enough reasons for me to stick around. Heck, you've already created your follow-up, so why not off yourself as well?! I mean, you've already made your contribution to the next generation, so I guess now you're just an extra burden on this planet as well. Why don't we off ourselves together then, eh?

Why? Those with critical thinking skills will no where I am going with this.

Heck, you've already created your follow-up, so why not off yourself as well?!

Well, I feel that a 3 week old baby really can't raise herself, so I'll stick around. She may have my genes, but I feel the environment shapes a child much more than the genes. Also, we rely on our parents an awful lot, child rearing is a ardous undertaking, so I would like to be as helpful to my children as our parents are to us.

A. Rightmann

How helpful can you be... (5.00 / 1) (#33)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:19:05 AM PST

...when you deliberately point out how you get a restful night of sleep while your wife tends to your baby? I guess you really don't care much about helping out if you are bragging about this! She carries the baby to term and is now expected to be the one to stay awake at night, getting even less sleep, to care for the person you expect to care for you when you are old. Absolutely ridiculous...

( I saved my vacation so that I could spend most of the week at home with my family during this crucial time) I calm down the baby (she's a tough one to burp, like her bigger sister) after she's been nursed. In fact, I was up until 2 last night burping her.

Most mornings I let my wife sleep in, and I get up with our older daughter and take care of her.

Like most situations, it's not nearly as black and white as you think, once you get to know the details.

A. Rightmann

Grey, Not B&W (5.00 / 2) (#38)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:30:36 AM PST

You are correct, once you get to know the details, situations are not as black & white as they seem...so quit making your own generalizations and assumptions about the vastly increasing population of the world which is without children (by choice or not) since you do not know the details of their situations.

Wrongmann (5.00 / 1) (#44)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 10:00:41 AM PST

"I myself am getting sick of the childless continually griping about parents taking time off to be with their sick children, or being given preferential vacation time since their children are out of school, or being excused from long business trips because family is a priority."

Oh, and CF people don't have families? What about our spouses, parents, siblings? Don't they count? My husband can't take off from work to tend to his mother who is stricken with Alzheimers because he's too busy covering for Breeder Duddie and Moombie who have to take off ebecause Jr. has a soccer game or Buffy has the sniffles. Of course, he's worthless because he doesn't have an almighty goldensprog to tend to.

"Sadly, this well thought out piece will bring more of the anti-children folk out of the woodwork."

That's right, buddy. We're here, we're CF, get used it!!! [You have a real problem with stereotyping people. I just wonder what your take on minorities and gays is.]

"If they would just honestly look inside themelves, they would realize that their lifestyle with expensive vacations, sports cars, nice clothing, nice houses are all just bandaids on their tortured souls, souls aching for a young one to call their own."

Bwahahaha! Good one! I drive a nine-year old car, own a very small house in a middle income neighborhood, buy my clothes from discount stores and thriftshops. Stop ASSuming that because a person doesn't have children that they live affluent lifestyles. [again with the stereotyping.]

My soul does not ache, I have no desire for a young one to call my own. [sounds a bit on the peodphilic side if you ask me] I think you're the one who seems to be tortured. Your obessesion over those of us who are childfree is quiet suspect. Perhaps your soul is the one that is aching because you are having second thoughts about your kid. Need a bandaid?

"But, if they're still to selfish to have children, at least a double tax will help the next generation"

I don't get the correlation between being childlfree and selfishness. Explain it to me, please. And while you're at, it list your reasons for having a child. Let's see how selfless you really are.

As far as my taxes go, you already get more than enough of them through school taxes and tax credits. Children are a choice. You should have thought about the expense of raising one before you had it. Bed. Made. Lie.

"Well, I feel that a 3 week old baby really can't raise herself, so I'll stick around. She may have my genes, but I feel the environment shapes a child much more than the genes."

Speaking of which, smart guy, did you bother to check your genetic history before making this child? I ask, because, since "we" are so selfish, SOME of "us" have checked our genetic background, and would NOT like to pass along genetic defects/issues to the next generation to suffer through. Gee, such a SELFISH move, eh? *rolls eyes*

But if all the childless people ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:13:02 AM PST

But if all the childless people killed themselves, who would there be to collect the extra tax from? What would be the point of this article?

Seriously, if humanity is such a burden on the Earth...what exactly is your rationale for living?

If we, the Child-Free of the world let the filthy spawn of the beastial procreaters run rampant, we would have a world with no rules, no art, nothing but feral copulation and starvation and violence. Why do we live? Somebody has to keep you in check. We work for the government, or in the defense industry, or the snack food industry. We make flammable pajamas for children, allergy medication with fatal side effects, and SUV's that are both status symbols and death traps. Rather than directly murdering you like the animals you are, we help you kill yourself with your own perverse desires.

Well then... (5.00 / 1) (#21)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:56:05 AM PST

I hope your kids grow up to be doctors and nurses, because if they don't, you too will be cared for by other people's children should you ever have to go to a hospital or a nursing home. I hope they become firefighters too, so other people's kids don't have to rescue you if your house burns down, and police officers so other people's kids don't have to arrest the criminals that try to harm you, and politicians so other people's kids don't have to lead you, and garbage collectors so other people's kids don't have to pick up your trash and....

You're going to need a lot of offspring if you think depending on other people's children is so horrible.

Nail + Head = DingDingDing! (5.00 / 1) (#28)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:07:24 AM PST

This is exactly it. We, the "bitter" childless, are being treated by others' children in the same way that parents will be treated by others' children. In the long run, non-parents pay more taxes than parents anyhow. Not only that, but we do not leave behind us any more of a burden on this planet or on society. Once we are gone, we are gone. We do not leave behind more people to feed, clothe, employ, worry about and so on and so forth. We make the best of the life we have been given without asking and then leave without making a permanent footprint on this already over-burdened Earth.

Umm, you ever hear of the marriage penalty? (5.00 / 1) (#59)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:20:00 PM PST

>In the long run, non-parents pay more taxes than parents anyhow. <p>

Not true. The $500 deduction you get on your income taxes on your kid is truly offset by paying 30-some odd percent of your wages to the federal government because BOTH spouses are taxes are assessed at the same rate. Ex. spouse 1 makes 60k and spouse 2 makes 20k...both get assessed at the same rate.

Hmmmmm.... (none / 0) (#68)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 12:35:37 PM PST

Do you think that all people who are childfree are also not married? Surprise! We're getting taxed for being married, same as you are. You're getting a tax credit per shriekling, we're not. So I guess your point is moot.

"Perhaps you could write one up (a living will)where you agree not to be resuscitated or cared for by people younger than you, you know, the children of your peers."

Please, if you are trying to say that by NOT having kids, then there will be a shortage of doctors, etc., then you are in a fantasy world. THERE ARE OVER 6 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET NOW! There will surely be a large percentage of them going into the medical field...

OH, and um...I'll arrange it so that those children of my peers won't have to worry their little heads off about me: A phat 401K, solid investments, a small inheritance and a bit of that dwindling Social Security will take care of me just fine, thankyouverymuch. So, don't loose any sleep about it.

Great point! I meant to address the financial aspect of being CF in my initial response to this...person.

First of all, both my b/f and I, when we first met over 2 years ago, brought individual debt to the table: he with a student loan and some credit card debt, and me with credit card debt. To this day, we are keeping two steps ahead of the bill mongers (barely), even though we make a decent double income. It's STILL not enough to PROPERLY support even ONE child. What I mean by 'properly' is NOT going on welfare (this is not to say that being on welfare is BAD, but IMO, it can have a negative effect on kids), food stamps, WIC, etc., not having to keep borrowing money, and not being able to pay it back, having to decide how to spend money ("Do I spend it on food, or on getting the car fixed???"), and so forth. I do that already, and NO child is involved! So, this LIE about this so called glitzy lifestyle...who in the HELL is HE talking about, because he damned sure ain't talking about MY life!

Again, you bravely stated:
"So, I'm selfish, am I? Yes indeed, I'm so selfish that I can't bear the thought of adding another little superconsumer to an environment already stretched far beyond its capacity. Shame on me for refusing to inflict the hereditary illness I carry onto an unsuspecting child. How dare I opt out of parenthood when I too might enjoy the guilty pleasure of pumping out little DNA replicas to ensure my "immortality" -- it's not as if I'm personally capable of making a contribution to society through my own hard work and creativity. I'm not taking the easy way out -- imagine that!"

Well stated!!!!!! Speaking again of being selfish...I wonder if it's being selfish (for some) to NOT reproduce because of unresolved issues from THEIR OWN childhood (dyfunction in the home: drug/alcohol use, molestation, rape, incest, etc.). Doesn't the mantra: "Stop the cycle" mean anything to those who would love for everyone to have kids? Yeah, tell that to the little boy who had to watch his father beat the crap out of his mom with an aluminum bat, then call 911. How do I know this? I had to do grand jury duty in 1996, and we had to listen to the 911 tape. Hope that young man won't follow in his dyfunctional dad's footsteps. We can only pray...

Hmph, talk about being selfish...oh yeah, let's have MORE children being born in situations not fit for a child, and like you said, "Get back to me in 30 years", and THEN let's see how the future REALLY is. Talk about a reality check!

Oh, I'm soooo selfish. (5.00 / 1) (#36)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:25:02 AM PST

I decided that, rather than devote 18 years to raising on affluent child (and since I'm a pharmacist and my husband is a software engineer, we'd be considered affluent by most standards), I could use those 18 years to make a difference in the lives of 6 underprivileged teens through Big Brothers/Big Sisters. I can volunteer twice a week at the free clinic in town rather than just once, or not at all. I can tutor at local high or middle schools.

But, of course, this argument is completely lost on Mr Sanctimonious, whose head is firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine.

If we were 'aching' for children, why wouldn't we just have them? There is only one person in this debate unable to undo their choice. Perpetual renewal of our decision is not a sign of regret. Then again, I wouldn't expect someone who was not able to detect the satire in the article capable of that kind of rational thinking.

It's interesting to hear how you would live were you not financially drained and time-committed to your offspring. Time to haul my selfish ass back to the local Habitat project.

A. Rightmann wrongly stated:
"I myself am getting sick of the childless continually griping about parents taking time off to be with their sick children, or being given preferential vacation time since their children are out of school, or being excused from long business trips because family is a priority. Sadly, this well thought out piece will bring more of the anti-children folk out of the woodwork."

Say WHA??? Truly you can not believe such as assine statement. First of all, let's "go to school" because you CLEARLY need to know the difference between CHILDFREE and CHILDLESS: ready...ok let's go.

One definition (and probably the best one)
(from www.childfree.net)
{We are a group of adults who all share at least one common desire: we do not wish to have children of our own. We are teachers, doctors, business owners, authors, computer experts - you name it. We choose to call ourselves "childfree" rather than "childless," because we feel the term "childless" implies that we're missing something we want - and we aren't. We consider ourselves childFREE - free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires.}

In addition, being childless usually refers to those who WANT kids, but can not, due to infertility issues, etc.

Now that you've been taught that lesson, let's continue...

You continue to state:
"If they would just honestly look inside themelves, they would realize that their lifestyle with expensive vacations, sports cars, nice clothing, nice houses are all just bandaids on their tortured souls, souls aching for a young one to call their own."

ROTFLMAO!!! Whew, you should take that act on the road dude...such laughable material!!!!! Baaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaa!! I can tell you THIS: MY life is full and enriched with my fiancee..no torturing of souls, no aching for a young one....pffft! So silly...

You continue to...try to say:
"But, if they're still to selfish to have children, at least a double tax will help the next generation."

Ok, wrong again. To choose NOT to have children can not POSSIBLY be "selfish". Why? Again, school's in session:

2) The many children today (in the US) that are uninsured and under-cared for:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/children.html

3) Each pregnancy is a health risk to women, even healty women. A pregnancy takes an unbelieveable toll on a woman's body and mind.
http://www.familyplanet.org/maternalhealth.htm

Now, since the earth's resources are being depleted due to consumption, and areas of land are being torn down to accomodate new families, the ozone layer is thinning (consumption again), the "next generation" won't have much to look forward to, now will they? Why even ADD to that growing population?

So...how again are "we" selfish? I think "we" ARE thinking of the children when "we" decide NOT to have any.

Remember: It's CHILDFREE, not CHILDLESS, ok? Ok! Class dismissed.

More benefits means more children. (5.00 / 2) (#6)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:04:19 AM PST

A good way to increase the population is to greatly increase the Social Security system. In the USA just now, unemployment is at a record low. Unfortunately, it is the people with the most time on their hands who reproduce the most, so no wonder the reproduction rate is decreasing.

If we want society to have more children, we should increase unemployment to perhaps 10-15% and provide massive social security and benifits, paid for by Corporate taxation.

This would create a special breeder class, without any accompanying issues of Orwellian government control.

It would also increase the intelligence of society. There is a statistical rule called `regression to the mean`. What this means is that children of highly intelligent parents tend to be slightly more unintelligent, closer to the mean, and the converse applies to the unintelligent. As only the unintelligent will be unemployed, and hence reproducing more, we can see that the overall level of intelligence of our nation would increase over time.

The benefits are universal - I don't see why this system, already in use by the canny British and French, should not be used in America as well.

<snip>The benefits are universal - I don't see why this system, already in use by the canny British and French, should not be used in America as well.
</snip>

The reason why this will never happen in the United States is because we are not a socialistic society...we are capitalistic, which means that you make your own opportunities. Supporting a bunch of loosers so that they can breed and stay at home watching soap operas is not my idea of an intelligent way of spending my tax dollars. There are plenty of people in the world who are capable of working all of the jobs that everyone is so worried about being filled in 50 years. Why not relax emegration laws so that the able can come here and create their own opportunities?

In addition, the one thing that has not been brought up here is the idea that each child that is born in a more developed country KILLS up to 3 children born in a lessor developed country due to lack of resources. If we want to look at how a pronatilist society benifits the world, why don't all of you breeders go to Rwanda and explain why your child has more of a God given right to live than theirs.

Parents are systematically more likely to think of the future of our planet and our society

Do you have any proof to back up that assertion? Just to play devil's advocate, it seems to me that a lot of people become parents precisely because they cannot make a connection between short-term gratification (e.g. sex) and long-term consequences (e.g. children). Many people who forego having children do so because they do take the long view and consider things like overpopulation. Who's really thinking of "the future of our planet and our society"?

"Children are nobody's responsibility but their parents'". A superficially attractive slogan, but one with no logic to it whatsoever.

I agree with you that everyone shares responsibility for children. However, I resent your proposal of taxation without representation. Yes, that's what it is. If childless people are to be forced to pay for the rearing of children, they should have some say in how those children are raised, and yet you propose reducing childless people's proportional representation in the decision-making process. It's the most selfish agenda imaginable.

We all benefit from the favourable demographic pyramid effect of a constantly growing population

That would only be true if resources were infinite. They're not. That being the case, we actually all - throughout the world, in case you were thinking only in narrow terms of the US or other rich countries - suffer the effects of increasing overpopulation.

It would seem, then, that the economic logic of a tax-the-childless policy is indefensible

You got that right. I'm sure it's not what you meant to say, but you ended up being correct despite yourself.

communism of children (5.00 / 2) (#8)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:29:00 AM PST

this is the real solution, communism of children. make the obviously selfish breeders, breed for the common cause instead of breeding for their own future enrichment.

Sad state of affairs (5.00 / 1) (#9)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:46:45 AM PST

What a deeply disturbing article. As someone who has chosen not to have children after a year of dealing with infertility, I have seen both sides of this issue.

The vast majority of the childfree that I know are not bearing a fancy lifestyle 'as bandaids on their tortured souls'. I do not ache anymore for a young one of my own, I have (through the tremendous support that I have found on the Internet and elsewhere) healed myself and moved on.

As for the childfree not thinking about the next generation... simply untrue. I myself quit a banking job two years ago (once we decided we would not be having children) to go back to school. What for? I am now a certified teacher, Kindergarten-Grade 6. CLEARLY I hate children, cannot be bothered about them, and couldn't care less about their futures. Honestly, how does "I do not have children" AUTOMATICALLY turn into "I hate children" or "I am too busy with my fancy lifestyle to have them"?

I think the real epidemic is not childlessness OR childbearing. I think it is a complete and utter lack of a willingness to consider the mere POSSIBILITY that both sides have merit. Parents do have a very difficult job, I do not argue this point. However, they CHOSE this job, and presumably had given it sufficient thought to know what would be involved. Many of the childfree DO like children (although some, frankly, do not, and I think that is their complete and utter right).

Rather than creating these false and damaging splits in society, would we not be better to try THINKING about things just a little bit??

Assuming you are biologically able to reproduce, then you have the choice. Of course, until very recently, we did not have that choice. It is only with the advent of contraceptive pill in the 1960's that we have had any choices on the matter.

You could say being childless is one of the luxuries afforded to us by technological advancements. Once you look at it that way, taxation seems perfectly sensible. Nobody objects to taxes on other luxury items, alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc so why object to this ?

The person who whinged about representation forgot one thing: The children do not have a vote. Why should my three kids have their future decided by someone with no kids, who believes they are a burden on society ?

I'd suggest that jsm does not go far enough with his proposal. Each parent should get an extra vote for every child they have. This way, we will get a society that is much more family-oriented and one which reflects the wishes of a lot more people than our current system does.

Think about it.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Take it one step further (5.00 / 1) (#22)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:58:48 AM PST

Previously (heck, with some people's life times), those who were infertile, were infertile. They either took in children of others or they went without. So, people who undergo fertility treatments are indulging in a luxury item (A VERY expensive luxury item). No one taxes them for driving up insurance costs.

Having children is not a right. If you are infertile, it's sad, and I feel sorry for you, but too bad. When did our country get to the point that when we argue about stem cell research we can say, "well, these babies (embryoes) are going to get thrown in the trash anyway, why don't we research on them?"

Fertility treatment is only a waste of our resources and a watering down of the value of human life. People aren't entitled to medical care. "Wah, Wah, I'm old so I should get free perscription drugs." America makes me sick.

Extra Votes For Breeder Brats? (5.00 / 1) (#39)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:37:14 AM PST

"I'd suggest that jsm does not go far enough with his proposal. Each parent should get an extra vote for every child they have. This way, we will get a society that is much more family-oriented and one which reflects the wishes of a lot more people than our current system does."

Good God, you have GOT to be kidding! My parents raised FIVE kids and never demanded that they get extra votes for us. The voting age is 18, your brats will have to wait until they are of that legal age to vote. Deal with it, you whiny BITTER BREEDER!

PS: I'd love a family-oriented society too, a MANSON FAMILY one!

luxury is supposed to be fun, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#45)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 11:36:13 AM PST

"You could say being childless is one of the luxuries afforded to us by technological advancements..."

...but you'd be an idiot.

Birth control has ALWAYS been an option; as long ago as the late Roman period people were using contraceptives and sexual practices that would not result in conception.

It has only been in recent history that contraception has been officially researched, mass produced, and effectively maintained thanks to technology.

It is, however, by no means a luxury; luxury is indulging yourself, which is the opposite of depriving yourself. Believe me, as someone who has been seriously ill because of prescription birth control pills and has an extreme allergy to latex condoms, the luxury would be to say "the hell with it" and go dancing in the rain without a raincoat, so to speak. Carefully using birth control or going without sex when you don't have birth control to hand is deprivation.

To throw my cares to the wind and damn the consequences. To not have to consider or deal with repercussions-- now THAT is luxury. After all, the village will be there to raise the child I didn't even want-- won't it?

Birth control has ALWAYS been an option; as long ago as the late Roman period people were using contraceptives and sexual practices that would not result in conception.

Correction:
people were using contraceptives and sexual practices that they hoped would not result in conception.

True enough, and all too often, the sexual practice they turned to was the abominable act of 'English Style' loving, one of mankind's most peverse sexual perversions.

If you are allergic to latex, there are plenty of alternatives on the market. However in the European Union, these are taxed with at least 17.5% VAT as Luxury Goods. So for at least 350 million people, they are a luxury.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

A sadly narrow-minded article... (5.00 / 1) (#11)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 08:01:01 AM PST

"Parents are systematically more likely to think of the future of our planet and our society"

Funny - I thought I had chosen not to have children *because* of our planet's current burden of overpopulation. I don't drive a car, I recycle, I won't be filling landfills with diapers... what makes you think I *don't* care about the planet? I care very much.

Put it this way: no kids from me means more places in over-crowded schools and beds in over-stretched hospitals for your children. Sounds different when I put it that way, doesn't it?

CF in the UK.

Speaking of Selfishness (5.00 / 1) (#32)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:16:20 AM PST

>> My family has been blessed with a new daughter. Like many newborns, she doesn't sleep well through the night. Last night she got up at midnight, and kept us up until 3:30. It won't happen tonight, the wife will sleep with her downstairs and tend to her, while I sleep upstairs, undisturbed. <<

The above posted by Mr. Rightmann, himself, proof of his own pure selfishness. How sad, how sad...

It's a much reprinted short science fiction story that you can get through Amazon here.

Basically, more smart people need to have children to balance out all the dumb, shortsighted people popping out kids. Otherwise, America is doomed to a proliferation of Wrestling, SUV's, Sea-doos, Budweiser and other dreck of the lame.

Tax the childless. They made their choice, now they can support the rest of the world with the benefit of their choices.

Tax the rich. Either they made smart choices, or they inherited a windfall. Either way, they chose to enjoy financial prosperity, so they can support the rest of the world.

Tax the one-car households. Owning only one car means money is being withheld to support other interests and concerns. Everyone can afford at least two cars or more in today's economy, so one-car households are obviously selfish bastards choosing to hoard their money. Tax it out of 'em so they can help support the rest of the world.

Tax the petless. They chose not to enrich their lives with pets, and now they enjoy the guilty pleasure of not having to financially support them. Now they can support the rest of the world with the benefit of their choices.

Support those who breed. Make children a source of government-subsidized income! Responsible breeding is a liberal, communist fallacy. After all, blessed are they who are fruitful and multiply. It's a Biblical commandment, after all.

This whole proposal sounded somewhat familiar, and then I recalled Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie), wherein only soldiers had the right to vote. Only they were given the right to vote because by volunterring to be a soldier and lay one's life on the life, one proved that one would put society before one's individual welfare.

Just asking.

gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

Bitter? Rich? Me? (5.00 / 1) (#43)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 09:46:35 AM PST

Wow- a whole bingo card of pronatalist blather. I don't understand the envy and even hate of the childfree by the parents at all.

I mean, if there weren't CF people around to take up the slack, things would fall apart, wouldn't they? While you raise your kids, we teach them, keep the Internet running, man your fire, police, stores, farms, distribution centers, etc. What I am trying to say is that we're all in this together.

Am I rich? Not really. I already pay a significantly higher proportion of my taxes to support families. And I do not live in the 'lap of luxury' either. But I am rich in spiritual serenity and the luxury to savor long thoughts, books, and quiet afternoons if I so choose.

Am I bitter? No. I have chosen the life path that is right for me, and that includes not having kids. I have no desire to raise them up in this rapidly disintigrating culture, or burden them with my genetic flaws. And I do not envy or hate people who do so, unless they irritate me with an entitlement-poisoned attitude, which seems to be becoming the norm. Having a baby doesn't make you a saint, and not having a baby doesn't make you a sinner. Making the correct choice simply makes you human. At least I understand my own limitations, and will not subject a child to them. You should not be so hateful to those intelligent enough to understand themselves enough to know that parenting is not for them.

Even if I did have my own children, there is no guarantee that they would care for me in my old age. Most likely that task will fall to a foreign immigrant, as it is now, who will take care of you, too, parent. Don't count on your kids doing it. Many lonely old people in nursing homes have kids who rarely see them. The heartache in their eyes is palpable. All the sacrifice and work they did for their kids as babies has been forgotten, and their children are off somewhere else, their parents forgotten.

I will take care of my own father when he reaches that stage of his life, if he chooses to permit me to do so. I won't have the excuse of kids of my own to keep me away.

Not having kids of my own also permits me to interact with other kids, as a non parental adult mentor. They'll tell me things that they'd never tell their parents. And I gently steer them towards responsible adulthood, through my actions and writings. I can do this because I have some peaceful distance between myself, and living under the same roof with them. I can see things about them that you cannot.

Really, instead of alienating those of us who have taken the road less traveled and not had kids, you should consider yourselves greatly fortunate to have us in your community. We'll pick up where you leave off, we'll keep the community running while you're off minding the kids, and we'll remind you that the village has many diverse people in it.

Remember that.

Sunfell

Childlessness epidemic? Bah! (5.00 / 1) (#49)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 12:41:28 PM PST

I can assure you there is no lack of children in America. That's because they were all in the movie theater with me last Saturday. How do I know this? I could only hear the kids crying and talking and I could not hear the movie.

Taxing the Childfree (5.00 / 1) (#50)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 01:14:36 PM PST

I'll agree to this taxing if I'm allowed to slap and correct children in public that belong to other people. If I'm allowed to put a child over my knee and spank them for being bad in public then I will pay extra tax no problem.

I also think that all the childfree should be allowed to carry paddles with them and spank rude children when they bother us.

And details passed on to the appropriate authorities. Please don't confuse adequacy.org with a site that is tolerant of the likes of you.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

Children are NOT the future! (5.00 / 1) (#51)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 01:45:52 PM PST

The future is the future. The future just IS. Within that future can be children. Within that future can also be old people, young people, spotted owls, pet dogs and cats, events unforseen, a donated sofa from Goodwill, and the Internet. None of these things ARE the future. They will just be there when the time comes. Young humans do not need to exist for there to be a future. The future will happen with or without us.

Some of us perform our responsibilities to the world in the here-and-now. We don't breed, so we take that extra time and energy and spread it outside our homes. Raising a child does not make the world a better place in the here-and-now. A child is a misfit in society, ignorant of meaning, clumsy in relationships, and unspeakably unwise. A child is a joy for the parents who delight in teaching it and a source of stress for everyone else. A child has future potential. An adult has here-and-now ability.

I have no trouble at all with paying my taxes so that all who live can afford to make good choices and get assistance when they need it. I am not rich, nor will I ever be, because I am more interested in improving the world than winning the race. You will find that a lot of CF people are leftists, idealists, utopians, charity workers... they're cleaning up the world we've got around us and that's a big task. I wish you wouldn't marginalize it so.

As far as voting? Take all the votes you need. The USA has not been changed by popular vote in a long, long time. If I need to protest landfills full of Pampers, polluting minivans, SUV strollers blocking the aisles, and other examples of sheer breeding stupidity, I'll do it the old-fashioned way. Bloody revolution.

So watch your neck. The CF have less to lose.

Tax the childless, and anyone else I find immoral (5.00 / 1) (#52)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 02:05:54 PM PST

JSM's argument personally offends and makes me ill, because I'm childfree. I'll spare him my vitriolic response, and my directions on where he can shove this.

Instead, because I'm aware of how democracy works, and I'm a logical person atop that, I'll restrict my objections to logic and common sense.

JSM's argument is weak; he provides no concrete evidence that taxing childfrees at higher rates and rendering "double vote" power to parents would improve society. He speaks broadly of benefits to children, but without even anecdotal references to how this would benefit children any more than, say, an alternative (such as restricting the amount of children born, and thus raising the resources that can be contributed to each child's benefit). His distracting multiple hyperlinks are oblique and off-topic, and he provides no studies or hard research to bolster his claims that gouging the childfree is a panacea. One can only assume that when he refers to "children" as beneficiaries, he means his own, and no others.

Worse, JSM's characterization of the childfree, and why they should be taxed higher, is rife with propaganda and personal prejudice. He finds them morally bankrupt; so therefore, they should be taxed heavily to subsidize those who have children -- those, in his view, who are morally superior. A tax structure based on perceived morality works well for the Taliban regime, I'm sure -- along with abolition of the Internet and executions of women who expose their faces in public.

Here in the West, however, even "sin taxes" on tobacco and alcohol are controversial, and not necessarily just. The biggest problem with morality taxation is that tax revenues fluctuate with the party in power. Let's speak hypothetically: right now, President Bush may feel it's appropriate to tax women who have abortions, or people who order pornography online, at a higher rate than the rest of taxpayers. So for a few years, there's all this (unjust) revenue exacted from people who have simply exercised their civil rights. New government programs are funded. Maybe the down payment is made on some new weapons. Along comes the next president, who, we hope, has her head screwed on straight, and abolishes these morally-punitive taxes. Now the weapons payments are in default, and the government programs have to be scrapped.

I agree, too, that taxing the childfree is taxation without representation. Should I disagree with the way our tax dollars are currently spent, I can certainly write my Congressional reps. Certainly, today's parents would not allow me a democratic hand in their own childrearing, even while their rummaging in my pockets for funds for new "special" schools for high school dropouts or other underage ne'er-do-wells.

As far as the throwaway "double vote" issue is concerned, it's unConstitutional, and will never fly, at least in the U.S. The sanctity of our voting rights lies in individual reason, not reproductive prowess. This is deliberate; it's an antidote to voting laws that ensured only wealthy property owners would have a voice in government. Children are the personal property of parents; they may be raised almost entirely according to parental will, and only certain people can afford to have children. Guaranteeing advanced voting privileges to parents is a regression to the ancient "no property, no vote" theory of government. JSM has simply substituted what he feels is the best and most moral kind of property one can have. He might just as easily have said, "anyone who owns a Barcalounger should get double votes." Good luck getting this theory to fly.

Another Modest Proposal (2.50 / 2) (#53)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 03:39:40 PM PST

Calm down, folks. This is obviously satire. The "fashionable branded goods which are so necessary for balanced development these days" should be your first dead giveaway clue. OK, it's not Swift, but it's not damn bad. hee hee hee.

Congratulations for figuring out the entire site (5.00 / 1) (#55)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 05:06:07 PM PST

I'd like to reward you with a gold star attached to your forehead with a staple gun.

JSM makes some very good points, but I do want to confront him on one issue.

Once this childless tax is initiated, I think it would be reckless to not institute a mate-free exception to the tax. All the unattractive (physically and emotionally) people of the world who want children, but can't find anyone desperate enough to procreate with them would be unfairly hit by a tax meant for the nihlistic bastards who are out to end our species by refusing to donate their reproductive capabilities to another for the common good.

I believe strongly that those who refuse to reproduce should be punished, but those incapable of reproducing by social reason or by inability to do so shouldn't be punished for their disabilities. This is about putting our foot down in favor of child-bearing not causing economic stress to the weak.

Why in god's name are you asking if this is a joke? Consider the two possible answers:

Yes, it is a joke. Most people got it, but not you. No, you had to say "hmm... it's ludicrous, over the top and deliberately self contradictory, might it be a joke?" Of course it's a joke you ninnyhammer, did you even read the article?

No, it's not a joke. You pompous arrogant piece of shit. Does your ludicrous self-worship not allow you to believe that people might actually disagree with you? I can't believe you. Get a clue already - you aren't the fount of wisdom and there are other people out there with differing opinions.

Clearly you can see that asking if this is a joke is merely inviting abuse. Now, don't you wish you hadn't asked?

--Peter
Are you adequate?--PeterAre you adequate?

Childless rubish (5.00 / 1) (#57)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 05:58:46 PM PST

Your arguements are quite frankly groundless.
As Woody Allen once said,(and I paraphrase, not remembering the exact quote) "Any idiot can have children and most do." Now the rest of society should pay because you went and had kid's without ever thinking about it? Get a clue.

What you should be advocating is education and laws to require a license to have children. We require people to take tests and pass exams for all kinds of things but any loser can go out and have kids without evey thinking about what it takes to raise and pay for children. The fact of the matter is, if we made it a little more difficult and required parents to pay their fair share(instead of giving them extra tax breaks and encouraging world overpopulation and the destrucion of the planet) many people would have fewer children and some would have non at all.

Some people actually *think* before running out and procreating, imagine that! Some people decide the world is overpopulated or that they wouldn't make the best parents so the decide to remain child-less.

These are some of the smartest, most open minded people I know.

Tax the childless? (5.00 / 1) (#58)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 06:16:03 PM PST

Hell no -- I say we tax the children! If they are INDEPENDENT individuals AND all that rubbish (of course all those kids chose Pokemon BASED on its inherent design, not because all their FRIENDS had one) then why can't they HOLD a job? I say we get the kids off the SOFA and back into the coal MINES where they belong. Added benefits INCLUDE less young offenders, more physically FIT children, and above ALL, cheaper coal to SOLVE our current energy crisis caused by bleeding-HEART Democratic lesbians in California.

It's a little known fact that our kids currently are being taxed. Just not by our government.

Who do you think is really profiting from the Pokemon craze? Wizards of the Coast? You've got to be joking.

The kids of this country are directly putting money in the hands of the Yakuza controlled Japanese government. It might as well be a tax, and all the mindless parents of this country are blind to the influence of organized crime in the lives of their children.

Ok, well if the article wasn't to be taken seriously, why bother to write such a long assed one??? It wasn't THAT funny anyway, so don't give up the day job, eh? Later dude.

tax the childless (none / 0) (#69)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 01:53:33 PM PST

that is the biggest piece of shit post I've seen in a long time. People who think like you are my biggest pet peeve.

IT'S DUMBFUCKS LIKE YOU THAT ARE DESTROYING SOCIETY! We are running out of resources, overpopulated and polluted. What is your solution? Shit out more baaayybbes? Fuck you and your cousin fuckin hillbilly mentality.
ELIMINATING SHITFORBRAINS LIKE YOU WOULD GRANT SOCIETY THE GREATEST FAVOR OF ALL!

Is this favorite phrase of politicians:
"We must do X for the children!"
Most childfree people realize this as the hollow blather that it is. Really clever ones translate it to "I really have no reasons I want to tell you about" or "I just think it's a good idea" or "I want to coat the whole world in 5 layers of nerf so a child won't even die falling out of an airplane".
However, people with children seem to fall for this tripe left and right. We have to bomb a country for the children! Ya! (But won't the bombs hit children?) We have to disarm the whole country for the sake of the children! Ya! (Is there some way other than a gun that an 80 year old woman can defend herself from a mugger?) We have to tax you for the children! We have to know where you are at every moment for the children! We have to kill all the adults to make room for the children!
Children, children, children! You parents need to learn how to raise a kid that won't get crazy with an UZI after being rejected by his peers, that's what needs to be done for the children!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.